User talk:John wesley

Welcome!

Hello John wesley, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! BD2412 T 19:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Marvin Chirelstein on Learned Hand

Thanks for your message. Are you referring to: Chirelstein, Learned Hand's Contribution to the Law of Tax Avoidance, 77 Yale L. J. 440 (1968) ??

I don't have a copy of that article, but I'm interested in reading it.

I'm curious: What areas of tax law interest you? Famspear 21:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, your user page showed you as an actuary and a lawyer, but someone has removed the lawyer reference. Are you a lawyer? Famspear 21:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I copied your professions linkage from the edits page/functionalty of Wiki to paste for my actuary designation. I copied it twice and only overwrote as an actuary once, thereby erroneously leaving a duplicate with a second designation as a lawyer from your page. John wesley 02:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC) Very boring explanation.[reply]

Dear John wesley: By the way, I haven't yet had a chance to find that Chirelstein article you were talking about, but I think I have a book on tax law by him somewhere in a box at home. I'm just trying to remember what the book was. I will have to dig it out one of these days. Famspear 17:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just read Daniel Shaviro's article, AN EFFICIENCY ANALYSIS OF REALIZATION AND RECOGNITION RULES UNDER THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX, 48 Tax L. Rev. 1 (1992). Great stuff, talks of the various non-recognition rules and economic efficiency. John wesley 17:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear John wesley: Just want to let you know I haven't forgotten about the Chirelstein article you were talking about. It's a little hectic right now. Also my wife pulled out tons of my old law books in my study at home because she's cleaning up to paint the walls in there. Maybe now I'll find that Chirelstein book I was telling you about. Yours, Famspear 20:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear John wesley: I finally found that Chirelstein tax book, but it was just a book on some basic concepts. Some day I'll get around to finding the Chirelstein article you were talking about. Famspear 18:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spendthrift trusts

Dear John wesley

On 23 Jan 2006 I edited certain materials from the article on Bankruptcy in the United States. Prior to the edit, the wording was as follows:

Prior to bankruptcy laws, common law courts recognized trust devices to shield from creditors of the beneficiary payments made by the trust grantor. Therefore, bankrupcty laws will not disturb such pre-existing non-bankruptcy law. An important example of such spendthrift trust are ERISA pension plans. The Supreme Court has recently held that Individual Retirement Account funds coming from ERISA pension plans are spendthrift trusts.

First, ERISA plans, strictly speaking, are not spendthrift trusts. Some (but not all) ERISA plans are, however, required to contain "anti-alienation provisions" similar to those found in spendthrift trusts.

Second, an IRA is, broadly speaking, an ERISA plan in the sense that the Internal Revenue Code provisions for IRAs (sections 219 and 408, if I recall correctly) were put into the Internal Revenue Code by ERISA. However, IRAs are not spendthrift trusts. IRAs are not required to have (and generally do not have) anti-alienation provisions.

The Supreme Court did not hold that IRA funds coming from ERISA pension plans are spendthrift trusts. The Court did hold, in Rousey v. Jacoway, that under section 522(d)(10)(E) of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code (11 U.S.C. § 522(d)(10)(E)), a debtor in bankruptcy can exempt his or her IRA from the bankruptcy estate. That is a separate provision from the Bankruptcy Code provision that protects beneficiaries of spendthrift trusts (i.e., Bankruptcy Code section 541(c)(2)).

Yours,Famspear 17:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you John wesley 17:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

USUFRUCT Doctrine

Dear John wesley: I saw the entries regarding Usufruct on BDAdamson's page. Yeah, I think you're right. It's Louisiana law. Since Louisiana is not a common law state, they originally did not have "trusts" -- at least not by that name, I think. I think usufruct (i.e., the "use of the fruit"??) is the Louisiana French "Code Napoleon" analog to the common law concept of an equitable or beneficial property interest in a trust. That's about all I remember at the moment. Famspear 20:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

457 plans

Are you planning on writing separate articles on b and f plans? If not, it's probably better to link just to 457 plan and have those to links as redirects there. Personally I don't see the need for individual articles until the 457 plan article gets so long it makes sense to split up. Also it's usually considered not the best practice to put redlinks in see also sections. In any case thanks for your work on the retirement plan articles. - Taxman ^Talk 20:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. Let's just put the link to "457 plan" John wesley 15:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mexico

Yes, I was thinking of doing that eventually since that's an area certainly lacking in the article. I'll try to put together a nice section on it soon. Thanks! -- Run e Welsh | ταλκ 17:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"How do we make a nation-specific notice board?"

Good question... don't know. Ask Ghirla | talk, who posted it on my talk page. Crzrussian 13:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Haytaian

Check the spelling of the name. There are a lot of Google hits. Dvd Avins 18:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bankruptcy, Deprizio, etc.

Dear John wesley: As long as I am droning on forever on my own talk page about taxes, I just want to let you know I haven't forgotten about our discussion about Deprizio and bankruptcy and writing something on that. I hope that one of these days I'll get around to it! Yours, Famspear 19:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chametz extended

Thanks for a good question! Chametz refers to the type of grain products we eat year-round — excluding Passover week. Kosher for Passover food products, on the other hand, can be eaten year-round — including Passover week. Therefore, there is no obligation to burn the latter after the holiday (in fact, we have to finish it up!). I added more detail to the article in light of your question. Yoninah 08:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FCRA

Would you please explain and source this edit of yours? : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fair_Credit_Reporting_Act&diff=43907601&oldid=43907232 I'd say that the FCRA is certainly about CRAs. I guess it's debatable whether it's about others, but your edit suggests both are debatable.

John, got your message. I'll make edits accordingly.

Tlatelolco Massacre

Only that it's very, very difficult when they are rich and powerful. 8)--Rockero 19:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin N. Cardozo

Hi John, I got your comment, and I think we should eliminate Category:Cardozo opinions for law school and replace it with something like "Cases involving Benjamin Cardozo". Let me know what you think. --Eastlaw 01:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wajda- Postwar Polish filmmaker

The statement refers to the time frame in which he was working. He did NOT make films before WW2; they were all made in the postwar period. I don't see HOW this might hem him in..... Vivaverdi 14:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rüdiger Dornbusch

Thanks for your message.

I don't really have an opinion if it should be Rudi or Rüdiger or something like that. But what was there before was incorrect for sure. Maybe we should link Rudi Dornbusch and Overshooting Model but I have several problems with both of these and I am not an expert so I left it alone. Stefán Ingi 15:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added the links, it should be all right. Stefán Ingi 12:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New York/New Jersey Highlands

You asked if the Highlands are threatened. I guess the answer is yes [1], but they're so close to New York City that to me, the miracle is that there is still as much undeveloped land as there is. At the same time, the undeveloped bits are fragmented enough that I find it hard to think of them as a "place", though that could also be because I live too close (almost in them). I take it you're suggesting an article? There is an article on the Ramapo Mountains, which is kinda the same thing. Maybe a redirect from New York/New Jersey Highlands to that article would do? Though it could certainly use substantially more. -- Mwanner | Talk 21:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... you got me curious, and I'm way off base identifying the highlands with the Ramapo Mts-- see [2]. It does seem like an article is in order, though it's one of those cases where the title is potentially messy. -- Mwanner | Talk 22:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How to smile

{{subst:smile}} ~~~~

- CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 13:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smiles are great!

Bhadani sends his friendly smile to you! Certainly, smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. I would request you to please spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk pages. Happy editing and all the best!

<! -- Template:smile2 --> --Bhadani 14:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I smiled wrongly hehehhehe --Bhadani 14:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review for Actuary article

Hi, John. Now that Actuary has been considered one of Wikipedia's good articles, I would like to see it develop or improve, if and as necessary, to become a candidate for featured article status. Therefore, and advice, suggestions, or statements that you think it is ready for featured article candidacy would be appreciated on the peer review page here: Wikipedia:Peer review/Actuary/archive1. Thank you. -- Avi 19:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actuary: featured article candidate

Hello, John. As you share an interest in actuaries with me, I would request you leave a comment (support, oppose, or neutral) on the article's featured article candidacy page here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Actuary. Thank you. -- Avi 22:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

Check out Wikipedia:Naming conventions (immigration).--Rockero 21:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to ask one more time:

Who the heck are you? What school do you go to? Time to identify yourself and/or stop trolling my talk page! - CrazyRussian talk/email 20:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bona Fides and John wesley

Can you cogently explain to me why you have two accounts? - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Football hooliganism

Hello there, another use similar to Metb82 is removing information regarding Turkish hooliganism from the Football hooliganism article. I was wondering if you share your views. Thanks. Englishrose 17:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questioning minor 1st paragraph edits?

Re: John Roberts, John Paul Stevens, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Samuel Alito, Sandra Day O'Connor
This is a small matter. I don't understand the reasons for Sjrplscjnky's recent minor edits of articles about each of the Justices of the Supreme Court. After some time, there has been no response to inquiries posted on this editor's talk page nor has there been feedback from similar postings on the talk pages of each of the nine articles about a sitting Justice and the one about retired Justice O'Connor. Rather than simply reverting this "improvement," I thought it best to solicit comment from others who might be interested. I found your name amongst others at Talk:Supreme Court of the United States.

I'm persuaded that Sjrplscjnky's strategy of introducing academic honors in the first paragraph is unhelpful in this narrow set of articles -- that is, in Wikipedia articles about Justices of the Supreme Court. I think my reasoning might well extend as well to others on the Federal bench. In each instance, I would question adding this information only in the first paragraph -- not elsewhere in the article.

In support of my view that this edit should be reverted, please consider re-visiting articles written about the following pairs of jurists.

A1. Benjamin Cardozo
A2. Learned Hand

B1. John Marshall Harlan
B2. John Marshall Harlan II

The question becomes: Would the current version of the Wikipedia article about any one of them -- or either pair -- be improved by academic credentials in the introductory paragraph? I think not.

Perhaps it helps to repeat a wry argument Kathleen Sullivan of Stanford Law makes when she suggests that some on the Harvard Law faculty do wonder how Antonin Scalia avoided learning what others have managed to grasp about the processes of judging? I would hope this anecdote gently illustrates the point.

Less humorous, but an even stronger argument is the one Clarence Thomas makes when he mentions wanting to return his law degree to Yale.

As you can see, I'm questioning relatively trivial edit; but I hope you agree that this otherwise plausible "improvement" should be removed from introductory paragraphs of ten articles. If not, why not?

Would you care to offer a comment or observation? --Ooperhoofd (talk) 20:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Hornbook -- a new WP:Law task force for the J.D. curriculum

Hi John wesley,

I'm asking Wikipedians who are interested in United States legal articles to take a look at WP:Hornbook, the new "JD curriculum task force".

Our mission is to assimilate into Wikipedia all the insights of an American law school education, by reducing hornbooks to footnotes.

Each casebook will have a subpage.

Over the course of a semester, each subpage will shift its focus to track the unfolding curriculum(s) for classes using that casebook around the country.
It will also feature an extensive, hyperlinked "index" or "outline" to that casebook, pointing to pages, headers, or {{anchors}} in Wikipedia (example).
Individual law schools can freely adapt our casebook outlines to the idiosyncratic curriculum devised by each individual professor.

I'm encouraging law students around the country to create local chapters of the club I'm starting at my own law school, "Student WP:Hornbook Editors". Using WP:Hornbook as our headquarters, we're hoping to create a study group so inclusive that nobody will dare not join.

What you can do now:

1. Add WP:Hornbook to your watchlist, {{User Hornbook}} to your userpage, and ~~~~ to Wikipedia:Hornbook/participants.

2. If you're a law student,

Email http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Hornbook to your classmates, and tell them to do the same.
Contact me directly via talk page or email about coordinating a chapter of "Student WP:Hornbook Editors" at your own school.

(You don't have to start the club, or even be involved in it; just help direct me to someone who might.)

3. Introduce yourself to me. Law editors on Wikipedia are a scarce commodity. Do knock on my talk page if there's an article you'd like help on.

Regards, Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 20:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello John wesley! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 2 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 4 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

John Dockery - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Bill Mazer - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 23:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia-integrated academic journal

Hi,

I'm messaging to ask whether you might be interested in being an editor for the WikiJournal of Humanities (www.WikiJHum.org)? It's a journal modelled on the successful Wikipedia-integrated medical journal (www.WikiJMed.org). The editorial board is covers a range of fields and expertise in the Humanities, arts and social sciences.

It couples the rigour of academic peer review with the extreme reach of the encyclopedia. It is therefore an excellent way to achieve public engagement, outreach and impact public understanding of science (articles often get >100,000 views per year).

Peer-reviewed articles are dual-published both as standard academic PDFs, as well as directly into Wikipedia. This improves the accuracy of the encyclopedia, and rewards academics,experts and professionals with citable, indexed publications. It also provides much greater reach than is normally achieved through traditional scholarly publishing.

Based on my experiences, time commitment is pretty flexible. An editor would generally devote 2-10 hours per month to inviting suitable submissions and organise their external peer review:

Identify fully missing Wikipedia topics and invite academics to write broad review articles on them (e.g. this)
Identify important, but poorly covered topics and invite experts to update or overhaul them (e.g. this)
Invite authors of good Wikipedia pages to put their articles through external peer review (like this)
Possibly implement some figure or gallery review articles (e.g this and this)

Hopefully it will help to get experts, academics and professionals to contribute content to the encyclopedia via a more familiar and cv-rewarding academic journal format.

Anyway, let me know if it's the sort of thing that might interest you. PS. A relevant article in Science.

T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 12:02, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Speaking Freely

The article Speaking Freely has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non notable tv show.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mccapra (talk) 22:58, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Donald Ratajczak

The article Donald Ratajczak has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. ThurstonMitchell (talk) 23:29, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Digital Age (TV series)

The article Digital Age (TV series) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Sources are WP:PRIMARY

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:12, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Digital Age (TV series) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Digital Age (TV series) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Digital Age (TV series) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:34, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]